Gravitomagnetic effect 10^20 large then predicted by GR ?

http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
"It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "

"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "

serg271 wrote:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
> "It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
> generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
> gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
> confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
> domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
> high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
> acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
> is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
> Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
>
> "The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
> quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
> photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
> known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
> unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
>
> Any comments ?

1) Podkletnov.

2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.

"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
data.

4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.

5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.

Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:44249831.4A46385E@hate.spam.net...
> serg271 wrote:
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
>> "It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
>> generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
>> gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
>> confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
>> domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
>> high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
>> acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
>> is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
>> Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
>>
>> "The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
>> quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
>> photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
>> known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
>> unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
>>
>> Any comments ?
[...]
> 5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
> stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
> supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
> temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
>
> Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
> unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
> its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
> supercon, that is convincing.

It's always possiblethat there's something special about the specific
material used that isn't due to "spurious effects" per se, but to some
unexpected property of that material under those circumstances.

Uncle Al wrote:
>
> 1) Podkletnov.
>
> 2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
> 4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
> anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
> free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
> extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
> million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
> predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
>
> http://einstein.stanford.edu/
>
> 3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
> observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
> with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
> magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
> anomalies,
>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
>
> "one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
> Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
> data.
>
> 4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
> evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
>
> 5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
> stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
> supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
> temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
>
> Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
> unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
> its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
> supercon, that is convincing.
>

Here is a better descriptionhttp://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
and arxivhttp://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
(liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?

serg271 wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
>
>> 1) Podkletnov.
>>
>> 2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
>>4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
>>anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
>>free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
>>extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
>>million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
>>predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
>>
>>http://einstein.stanford.edu/
>>
>> 3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
>>observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
>>with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
>>magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
>>anomalies,
>>
>>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
>>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
>>
>>"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
>>Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
>>data.
>>
>> 4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
>>evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
>>
>> 5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
>>stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
>>supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
>>temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
>>
>>Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
>>unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
>>its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
>>supercon, that is convincing.
>>
>
>
> Here is a better description
> http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
> and arxiv
> http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
> They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
> with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
> (liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
> not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
> confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
> exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?
>

Gravity Probe B does not have the experimental 'dot omega'
so results are not comparable.

Gravitational Radiation Theory says spinning objects must have eccentricity
Not all Pulsars should gravitationally radiate.

Podkletnov 1992 had a 'dot omega'.

Due to individual idiocentric superconductor
Material Cooper Pair density characteristic,
Before conducting the gravitational experiment,
Do a good material critical current analysis
or establish specific material Cooper Pair Density by other means
and fabricate to MAXIMIZE.

LawsonE wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:44249831.4A46385E@hate.spam.net...
> > serg271 wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
> >> "It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
> >> generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
> >> gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
> >> confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
> >> domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
> >> high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
> >> acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
> >> is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
> >> Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
> >>
> >> "The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
> >> quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
> >> photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
> >> known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
> >> unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
> >>
> >> Any comments ?
> [...]
> > 5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
> > stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
> > supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
> > temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
> >
> > Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
> > unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
> > its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
> > supercon, that is convincing.
>
> It's always possiblethat there's something special about the specific
> material used that isn't due to "spurious effects" per se, but to some
> unexpected property of that material under those circumstances.

serg271 wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Podkletnov.
> >
> > 2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
> > 4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
> > anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
> > free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
> > extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
> > million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
> > predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
> >
> > http://einstein.stanford.edu/
> >
> > 3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
> > observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
> > with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
> > magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
> > anomalies,
> >
> > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
> > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
> >
> > "one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
> > Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
> > data.
> >
> > 4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
> > evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
> >
> > 5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
> > stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
> > supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
> > temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
> >
> > Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
> > unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
> > its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
> > supercon, that is convincing.
> >
>
> Here is a better description
> http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
> and arxiv
> http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
> They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
> with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
> (liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
> not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
> confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
> exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?

Ahh... you'd think they would have put it in /gr-qc/. The S/N is weak
compared to their grandiose conclusions. Mere superconductivity
appears to be insufficient. If BCS type II supercons at 4K reliably
show the effect, I want to see some others tested before anybody
shouts "one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's
General Relativity predicts."

Reasonable extrapolations/calculations of Hc where Hc is related to
Stabilization Superconductor Free Energy Density (p 349) and where Hc ~
sqrt(Hc1*Hc2) (p 364) would indicate a better correlation of Hc as a
function of Tc than Hc2 as a function of Tc and perhaps a better
baseline for correlating potential gravitomagnetic effects.

Abstract: It is well known that a rotating superconductor produces a
magnetic field proportional to its angular velocity. The authors
conjectured earlier, that in addition to this so-called London moment,
also a large gravitomagnetic field should appear to explain an apparent
mass increase of Niobium Cooper-pairs. This phenomenon was indeed
observed and induced acceleration fields outside the superconductor in
the order of about 10^-4 g were found. The field appears to be directly
proportional to the applied angular acceleration of the superconductor
following our theoretical motivations. If confirmed, a gravitomagnetic
field of measurable magnitude was produced for the first time in a
laboratory environment. These results may open up a new experimental
window on testing general relativity and its consequences using coherent
matter.

>It is a curious result deserving of replication in other labs in other
>materials.

As they say themselves.
>My money is on Einstein.
>
I would be cautious of backing Einstein on this one, since the
understanding of super conduction takes us into the quantum domain, and
so to quantum theories of gravity.

On the other hand I am suspicious of the result, but understanding it
requires more knowledge of superconduction than I claim to possess, and
probably more knowledge of superconduction which anyone possesses, since
it seems the phenomenon is not fully understood. I am also suspicious of
the authors' use of the Higgs mechanism to show the mass increase in
Niobium Cooper pairs; this seems to be their own calculation and I do
not know if it is generally accepted.

Since they have to apply a substantially greater acceleration than that
found to the superconducting ring in order to observe the effect, it
seems plausible that a field of the size found is actually due to an
experimental error. I would be inclined withhold judgement until such
time as there is clear evidence from other experiments, and preferably a
solid theory to go with it.